Agenda item

(Note: At this point in proceedings, Councillor Rebecca Longbottom re-entered the meeting).

The Assistant Director of Planning:

a)    advised that the application property was 74 Carholme Road, a two storey terraced property, and proposed the erection of single storey extension to the existing property;

b)    the application was brought before Planning Committee as it had more than four objections, including a written representation from Ward Councillor Lucinda Preston;

c)    provided details of the policies pertaining to the application, as follows:

-       Policy S53: Design and Amenity

-       National Planning Policy Framework

d)    advised Planning Committee of the main issues to be considered as part of the application to assess the proposal with regards to:

-       National and Local Planning Policy

-       Principle of the development

-       Impact on the amenity of nearby properties

-       Design and impact on visual amenity

-       Highway safety, access and parking

e)    outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise;

f)     advised that the existing dwelling was occupied as C4 HMO, which permitted up to six individuals to live within the property; the application proposed a single storey extension to the rear to accommodate expanding living space and officers may therefore principally consider the physical and visual impact of the extension upon the neighbouring properties;

g)    reported that written representations had questioned the use of the space, suggesting that it could be used as additional bedroom space;

h)    confirmed that the case officer had subsequently confirmed with the applicant that the structure was intended to improve the layout of the property for its current small use as a small HMO for 3-6 persons. Furthermore, it was confirmed that an extension to the property to accommodate an additional bedspace would not change the established use of the property, which could also make use of permitted development rights to extend without the need for planning permission; and

i)     concluded that the proposals would not have detrimental impact on the residential and visual amenity of neighbouring properties in accordance with policy S53 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Councillor Neil Murray addressed Planning Committee on behalf of local residents with concerns regarding the planning application, covering the following main points:

·         Many local residents were not happy with the proposed planning application, and this was one of several recent applications within the area which was a cause for concern.

·         Local residents were concerned this was a way in which the owner was attempting to gain additional space within the property so additional tenants could reside.

·         The applicants did not live local to the area and therefore had little regard to the impact on the community nor to the impact of developing further onto outdoor space.

·         The surrounding area was already overdeveloped and therefore this application, along with similar other applications, added pressure onto the area nor was it visually attractive.

·         The application was detriment to the local character or history of the area.

·         The applicant has not approached the neighbouring property to obtain a party wall agreement, which would be required, which was of great concern.

The Committee discussed the content of the report in further detail, where the following points were noted:

·         The ‘party wall agreement’ was not a material planning consideration and therefore not for consideration by Planning Committee.

·         A concern was raised that by extending into garden spaces could result in large bulky waste items, such as mattresses, being left in alleyways, and therefore this becoming a fire hazard. In response, it was advised that this was not a material planning consideration and should this situation occur, enforcement action would be taken.

·         It was confirmed that an extension to the property to accommodate an additional bedspace would not change the established use of the property, which could also make use of permitted development rights to extend without the need for planning permission.

·         A concern was expressed that the City could not continue to receive such applications, as collectively they could impact on local communities. In response, it was advised that each application was considered on its merits.

·         Councillor Chris Burke advised that he would be voting against the application, as he believed Article 4 was being compromised, green space was being reduced and there was a need to reduce the carbon imprint within the area. In response, it was advised that the proposed  site was currently on a hard standing concrete area and therefore no green space would be reduced.

·         It was requested that reclaimed bricks were used as part of the development to ensure it visually was in keeping within the area. It was therefore proposed and seconded that a condition be added, subject to the grant of planning permission, for the applicant to provide details of the materials to be used for officers approval.

RESOLVED that the application be granted conditionally.

Standard Conditions

-       Three years for implementation.

-       In accordance with approved drawings.

-       Materials to be provided and approved by planning officers.

(Note: At this stage in proceedings, Councillor Mark Storer left the meeting for the duration of Minute 7 – Garages to the South West of Pottergate Monument, Pottergate, Lincoln.)